Camnet Finance Pty Ltd v Australian Workstation Manufacturers Pty Ltd [2017] NSWLC 13

Local Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Camnet Finance Pty Ltd v Australian Workstation Manufacturers Pty Ltd [2017] NSWLC 13 Hearing dates: 5 July 2017 Decision date: 25 July 2017 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Assessor Olischlager Decision: Verdict for the first and second defendant. Verdict for the cross defendant. Catchwords: CONTRACTS - rental agreement - failure of consideration - Australian Consumer Law - acceptable quality - fitness for purpose - sale of goods by sample. Legislation Cited: Australian Consumer Law (Cth), ss 54, 55, 57 Cases Cited: Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon [1993] HCA 4; (1993) 176 CLR 344 BHP Coal Ltd and Ors v O & K Orenstein & Koppel AG [2008] QSC 141 David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank [1992] HCA 48; (1992) 66 ALJR 768 Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1942] UKHL 4 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Camnet Finance Pty Ltd (plaintiff/cross defendant) Australian Workstation Manufacturers Pty Ltd (first defendant/first cross claimant) Anthony Scotts (second defendant/second cross claimant) Representation: Counsel: J Burnett (for the plaintiff/cross defendant) L McAuley (for the defendants/cross claimants)

Solicitors: Sarvass Ciappara Lawyers (for the plaintiff/cross defendant) Mobile Legal Service Pty Ltd (for the defendants/cross claimants) File Number(s): 2017/0009803

Judgment 1. Camnet Finance Pty Ltd (Camnet) operates a business supplying office equipment under lease arrangements. Australian Workplace Manufacturers Pty Ltd (AWM), the first defendant, is a company which operates a business designing and manufacturing office furniture. Mr Scotts, the second defendant, is a director of AWM. 2. On 9 March 2016 Camnet and AWM entered into a rental agreement under which Camnet supplied a Cube Pro Duo 3D Printer to AWM. The rental period was for three years and AWM agreed to make monthly payments of $148.50 (inclusive of GST). Mr Scotts agreed to guarantee the obligations of AWM under the rental agreement. 3. Camnet supplied the printer to AWM in March 2016 and issued invoices for each monthly instalment from March 2016 to February 2017. No payments were made by AWM. Camnet exercised its right to terminate the rental agreement for non-payment by way of a termination notice dated 16 February 2017. Camnet has taken possession of the 3D Printer and brings these proceedings seeking to recover the sum of $5,196.39 which has been calculated as the amount due under the rental agreement. 4. AWM does not dispute the calculation of the recovery amount under the rental agreement, however, it disputes liability on the basis that the 3D printer supplied by the plaintiff is not capable of producing commercial quality prints. AWM asserts that there has been a complete failure of consideration and that it received no benefit under the contract. AWM has filed a cross claim seeking damages in the sum of $9,500 for loss of productivity as a result of breaches under the Australian Consumer Law. In particular, AWM asserts that the goods are not fit for purpose and are not of acceptable quality.